Standing Committee B

[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Sayeed: Before we begin our debates, may I remind the Committee that, as the fans are on, it would assist Hansard if hon. Members spoke into the body of the Room and, in particular, if those at the back spoke up?Clause 94 Consents for generating stations offshore

Clause 94 - Consents for generating stations offshore

Amendment proposed [8 June]: No. 170, in 
clause 94, page 73, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(11) Consents shall not be granted until such time as the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no threat posed to the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters. 
 (12) Any proposal for an Offshore Wind Installation shall include details about the procedures to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and the wind farm. 
 (13) In the event of a change to an existing site being proposed, bodies representing the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters shall be consulted.'.—[Miss McIntosh.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jonathan Sayeed: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 186, in 
clause 100, page 77, line 36, leave out 'may' and insert 'is likely to'. 
Clause 100 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 164, in 
clause 101, page 77, line 41, at end add 
 'in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'. 
Clause 101 stand part. 
 New clause 17—Collision within a renewable energy installation— 
 'The Secretary of State for Transport shall set out procedures to be followed to prevent a collision taking place within a renewable energy installation, and procedures to be followed in the event of a collision within a renewable energy installation.'.

Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, on the opening day of Royal Ascot. When we last met, we heard a substantial speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who went through every possible reason for retaining clauses 100 and 101. You would call me to order, Mr. Sayeed, if I attempted to emulate that speech—not that I could—but I shall remind the Committee of certain aspects.
 Clauses 100 and 101 refer to the problems that might be encountered for shipping and navigation if we build wind farms in the sea. We have heard, both in this Committee and in outside debate, that it might be more acceptable to build wind farms in the sea rather than on land. There are many environmental objections to building wind farms on land, but that is also true for building them in the sea. My hon. Friend outlined a number of those problems, the most important of which is the possible danger to shipping. She also mentioned the problems for recreational activities, such as yachting and fishing. 
 Last year, while attending the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, I had an interesting meeting with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is still the largest membership charity in the country—the Minister is nodding, so that must be right. Its members wanted to discuss the problems that might be caused to the common scoter by the proposed site off Morecambe bay. 
 There are many issues as to exactly where wind farms should be built in the sea. When we look to the skies we may see aeroplanes, but it is not true that they can fly anywhere. In the same way, it may seem that the sea is a vast area, but there are problems associated with building wind farms just anywhere. 
 The issue was previously considered by the Transport Committee, which stated: 
 ''Clauses 100 and 101 must remain in the Bill.'' 
My hon. Friend talked about the Chamber of Shipping, the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association and UK Major Ports Group, which all have concerns about the issue. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated: 
 ''We do indeed intend to retain the substances of those clauses.'' 
That is open to interpretation; it depends what she means by ''the substances'' of the clauses. No doubt the Minister will tell us what she means. 
 Furthermore, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), stated on Second Reading: 
 ''The Committee believes that at some point a major problem such as a collision is inevitable.''—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 46-92.] 
Those are strong words indeed. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed my points and, more importantly, the substantial points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York a few days ago.

Bob Blizzard: I listened at great length to the hon. Member for Vale of York during the previous sitting. She said that the question of navigation and shipping, which is covered by clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 170, is a red line issue. By the end of her speech, I could see what she meant, but I would put it rather differently. The debate on this part of the Bill is the key test of whether members of the Committee really are committed to renewable energy and the targets set out by the Government.
 Clause 100 does not just say that navigation interests must be taken into account; it says that wind farms may not be established where there is 
 interference. In effect, it is a veto clause and amendment No. 170 is a wrecking amendment. The hon. Lady said that the amendment is intended to be constructive, but it is obstructive. It offers no further definition of certain terms contained in clauses 100 and 101. Clause 100 simply talks about interference. It is not clear whether that interference is a risk to safety or something that merely requires an alteration to a sea route, rather like a footpath diversion. That can be a purely commercial matter. 
 Clause 100 also refers to recognised sea lanes, but is not clear whether they would be defined as those habitually used or those that exist purely as a matter of historical record. It might be more reasonable if they were defined as something regularly controlled or managed by dredging. Are we to define them according to the density of traffic? It appears not, according to the hon. Lady, because at times she seemed to be referring to just one or two pleasure boats. 
 Clause 100 refers to lanes that are recognised as being ''essential to international navigation''. Are we then to consider the density of international sea traffic? Again, the hon. Lady went further than that and it was reinforced this morning by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who talked about recreational sailing and so on, which goes far beyond international sea traffic. The Opposition appear to want to give any navigational interest an absolute veto over any wind farm development. 
 Amendment No. 170 would be even more of an obstruction to offshore wind development than the fairly widely drawn clauses 100 and 101, because it talks not only about interference, but about a threat. It talks not just about navigation, but about shipping interests, which is an incredibly wide term. The entire burden of proof would be placed on the offshore wind developer. The hon. Member for Vale of York did not answer the question I asked on Thursday about what an offshore wind developer would have to do to demonstrate no threat. That is a pretty hard test.

Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that the public right of navigation should be overridden by the power to place wind farms at sea?

Bob Blizzard: I am saying that we have to take a balanced approach to this. There is a legitimate shipping and navigational interest, but we have to balance that against other important matters such as the need to develop renewable energy through wind farms offshore. Our debate on the clauses and the amendment is not about balance, but about introducing an unreasonable veto. If the debate was about balance, the amendment would not be necessary because wind farm legislation already has to comply with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.
 As part of the process for establishing those wind farms, each development must already have an environmental impact assessment—a rigorous and 
 demanding procedure that must give weight to navigational interests and set them in the context of other interests. The proposals we are debating would privilege shipping above all other interests, and those hon. Members who tabled them did so not purely for shipping, as they have a deeper motive. Shipping is being used as a convenient tool to undermine offshore wind development. 
 Honesty is needed in answering the question, ''Are we all committed to renewables?'' Everyone says that they are, but I was amazed to read in Hansard reports of debates in the other place involving outright hostility to offshore wind farms, which was also evident on Second Reading. The argument is that offshore wind is unreliable and expensive and that the Government are ignoring other renewable energy sources, but wind is a renewable source that is reasonably technologically advanced—enough to allow commercial development. Other technologies are not yet in that position, although I expect tidal current to be there in about five years. If we are committed to renewable energy and to meeting the target we need to set for it, it must be wind—now. 
 Let us bring further honesty to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and other members of the renewable and sustainable energy group visited Germany to examine wind development. We went to the German Energy Agency and learned that the Germans are about to move into offshore wind development in a big way. We heard about none of these problems from the Germans, but they asked us why we are going offshore when we have so much capacity onshore, as it is harder to develop wind power offshore than onshore. The honest answer is that it is difficult to make progress with onshore wind, whether we call that nimbyism or something else. Onshore wind development has become bogged down in the planning process and is often rejected. 
 Offshore wind development probably is more expensive, but by going offshore we thought that some of the opposition met by onshore development might be escaped. The heart of the opposition to onshore is that people do not like the idea of windmills being sited too near their property because they think that will devalue it. That is not unreasonable, but it makes wind farm development very difficult. 
 The proposals are a new way to try to block wind farm development. Shipping is a legitimate interest, but why is it being elevated and exaggerated in this debate?

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that we are exaggerating the problem. Is the Chamber of Shipping exaggerating it?

Bob Blizzard: The Chamber of Shipping is trying to put its point in the melting pot, but it is not leading the argument. It regularly contacts me on all kinds of matters, but first out of the trap on the issue was not the Chamber of Shipping but people who seem to have a downer on offshore wind. The record of debates in the other place shows that people who are leading on
 the matter have strong views on nuclear energy. The Government have the right policy—creating a 10-year window to try to get renewable energy off the ground, while not ruling out nuclear energy because it might be needed later to keep the lights on—but some hon. Members appear to have such a strong belief in nuclear energy that they do not want to wait that long. They want to wreck renewables now. That is what amendment No. 170 and clauses 100 and 101 are all about, and I hope the Committee rejects them.

Andrew Stunell: May I direct the Committee's attention to amendment No. 186, which is to clause 100 and stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)? I enjoyed the contribution by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), but I point it out to him that renewable energy zones will be needed as much for tidal, tidal stream and wave energy as they are for offshore wind turbines. Although I share some of his views, he needs to recognise that we require a robust process to handle the different interests, not simply for a short-term fix on offshore wind, but for what could be a major source of energy for the United Kingdom, using other water technologies over the coming decades. It is important to get this right, and he should not be too dismissive of what clauses 100 and 101 are designed to do.
 It is also important that there should be a proper balance between the different interests affected by such a development, and amendment No. 186 would be a small step towards rebalancing clause 100. It says that zones may not be established where interference ''may'' be caused. We simply want the clause to refer instead to where interference ''is likely to'' be caused, because the word ''may'' allows anyone to claim anything about anything and we need further modification. 
 If the Minister is inclined in principle to accept the need to balance the different interests that underpin the intentions behind clauses 100 and 101, he may well say that further modifications might be necessary, in which case we would consider them carefully. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I are strongly in favour of rapid development of offshore wind. We have no wish to obstruct or slow that down. However, it would be wrong for Government Members simply to dismiss that wish as nimbyism. It is necessary to ensure that shipping and trade are safeguarded, so it is necessary to ensure a proper balance between the establishment of the zones and the continuation of safe and secure sea routes to and from the UK. Those who are dismissive of the clauses need to take account of the Transport Committee's views. Of course, that Committee comes from a certain direction—I suppose a transport Committee would—and it brings a particular point of view to bear on this issue, but it is not a trivial one that should simply be dismissed because it does not suit the mood of the moment in this Committee. 
 I hope that serious consideration will be given to retaining clauses 100 and 101. We fully accept, however, that they need some modification so that there is a proper balance between the different 
 interests. Amendment No. 186 represents a small attempt to achieve that by not making the criteria so open-ended that they could have the effect described by the hon. Member for Waveney. We need to produce a procedure that involves not simply fixing offshore wind as quickly as possible, but establishing a proper way to determine how to use our offshore resources for decades ahead. Clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 186 represent sincere attempts to achieve that. 
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con) rose—

Jonathan Sayeed: Mr. Robert Key.

Richard Page: I must point out, Mr. Sayeed, that I am just slightly slimmer than my hon. Friend.

Robert Key: But I am much younger.

Richard Page: As far as I am concerned, everyone in the Room is much younger, which is why I shall not continue beyond the next election. [Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] Yes, but Government Members do not agree.
 I was not intending to comment on this group, but two things have encouraged me to do so: first, the inaccurate and intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Waveney and, secondly, the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York that the Government intend to remove clauses 100 and 101, which I found shocking. If the Minister is prepared to shake his head to indicate that the Government will not remove those clauses, I shall comment no further.

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that the Government accept the import of clauses 100 and 101. I shall ask the Committee to leave those clauses in the Bill, so that, on Report, I can bring back a revised form of words that will deal with some of the difficulties in the current wording to which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred. I hope, therefore, that I have spared the Committee what the hon. Gentleman might have said.

Richard Page: I thank the Minister for his comments. However, he has left a degree of uncertainty because, as much as I trust the Government, we are not clear about how they will change the wording of clauses 100 and 101. I do not wish to cause the Minister offence, but I must ask why those alterations were not introduced much earlier. The clauses are not a huge surprise; they have not suddenly emerged today. The Bill emerged from the House of Lords on 24 April, and the clauses were passed before then, so the Government have had more than two months to table amendments to them. Why should such amendments be tabled on Report rather than in Committee? Such amendments should be considered in Committee; the amendments tabled on Report should be those that
 flow from the Committee. Such amendments should not be tabled at the far end of the process when we have a timetable that pushes us against the buffers.
 I shall not comment on the marine safety aspects, because my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York has quoted quite extensively from a letter from the deputy director-general. However, it will not do any harm to repeat his statement that the clauses are 
''essential to the protection of over 125,000 ships a year and their crews that will pass within close proximity.'' 
That is an awful lot of ships and people. 
 Has the Deputy Prime Minister approved any of the amendments? The Labour party is in uncertain waters at present; there could be some seismic leadership changes. Undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister will be a key figure in any changes, and I would hate to see the Minister get into difficulty. I want to see the Minister go from strength to strength, because he is a genuine and likeable chap. I wish to see him rise through the system. He brings some sense to what has been happening. 
 It is obvious that there has been a lack of consultation by the Government with groups such as the Chamber of Shipping, the Major Ports Group, Trinity House and even the Department for Transport's Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Minister has said that the Government will table amendments to improve clauses 100 and 101, and we look forward to them. However, as I have said, they should have done that in Committee. The Government, with their huge majority, are in danger of treating various aspects of the democratic process with a degree of contempt. As the wheel turns—which it will—they must not be surprised if everything does not revert to what they want. 
 To touch on the amazing comments of the hon. Member for Waveney, I cannot see why support for nuclear and support for renewables should be mutually exclusive. Why cannot we have both? He tried to make out that it is one side against the other. Also, with his talk about land and sea, he seemed conveniently to forget that the installations at sea—which I want to see—will be considerably larger and more robust, and will generate much more electricity, than those on land. That is one reason for their going out to sea; they will be so big that it would be not practical to have them on land. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the objections that people would have—whether one calls that nimbyism or not—but the prospect of wind farms being vastly increased in size and noise means that putting them out to sea is the logical step. 
 The hon. Member for Waveney also mentioned safety, and I point to the figure of 125,000 ships quoted by the shipping representatives. If we had a planning application, would we stick the development in the middle of the M1? Of course not. We would put it to the side, so that it would not be run over by cars and so we could have both the planned development and safe roads.

Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the current drafting of clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 170 goes way beyond the interest of safety?

Richard Page: That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, but I do not see it in those stark terms. If clauses 100 and 101 were to remain, I doubt if my hon. Friends would press any of the related new clauses or amendments to a vote. However, there must be a requirement in law concerning the impact of offshore energy installations on users of sea lanes essential to international navigation.
 The explanatory notes make that point in paragraph 262: 
 ''Article 60(7) of UNCLOS''— 
the United Nations convention on the law of the sea— 
''states that artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation.'' 
The hon. Gentleman would throw that convention out of the window; the Conservatives are saying that it should be recognised and respected. That is a considerable difference.

Bob Blizzard: I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again, but I obviously did not make myself clear or perhaps I was misheard. I referred to that UN convention. My argument was that, because it exists, the wording of amendment No. 170 is unnecessary. While I am on my feet, may I ask whether he regards recreational yachting, referred to by the hon. Member for Vale of York, as essential international shipping?

Richard Page: I see no reason why, when accommodating international shipping, we cannot accommodate recreational sailing and fishing fleets. That does not mean that we would not have zones for wind farms, but they must be established in a way that is safe for maritime shipping lanes. Recreational yachting cannot be allowed to take place anywhere, because, as the hon. Member for Waveney said, that would make this a wrecking amendment. We do not want to wreck the clause; we want safety aspects to be properly recognised.

Anne McIntosh: The British marine industry and the Royal Yachting Association raised that point. Their concern is that there will be additional safety issues if recreational sailors are forced towards commercial shipping routes. I am sure that the Committee is familiar with the map produced by the Crown Estate, which shows where wind farms can be placed other than in international shipping lanes.

Richard Page: I hope that the hon. Member for Waveney will take comfort from that. The wording of the Government's amendments to clauses 100 and 101 is still a mystery; the amendments are still in the bowels of the Department and will be revealed only at the last moment when it will be impossible to table amendments. That is not satisfactory. I am not sure whether any form of protest can be lodged through you, Mr. Sayeed. I realise that your job is to ensure that there is peace, harmony and fair play on both
 sides, but I am shouting ''foul''. The Government have had more than two months to table amendments, but either they have not bothered or do not want to. They will slip them in on Report and use timetables to push them through. That is wrong. I would like to think that the Chairman's Panel could make recommendations; the Clerk can relax because I do not expect an instant answer. I speak for the whole Committee in expressing those concerns.

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we should know the Government's intentions at an early stage. He should take comfort from the fact that we will at least see something on Report. A written answer yesterday suggested that we will not learn about the relationship between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nirex until after the Bill has gone through the Commons.

Richard Page: I shall stay out of that argument. In fact, on the hon. Gentleman's point, I defend the Government. They have had various papers for considering the issue of energy for only a year or so; the Energy Bill has only existed for about a year. They have not had time to think about the problem. The hon. Gentleman must give them more time to work out solutions. We cannot move too quickly because the Government will run into trouble.
 A further area of concern is the Government's inconsistent attitude to maritime safety. Ministers have constantly rejected the idea of allowing the development of energy installations at sea without a strategic framework, because it would mean that the impact on other maritime users could not be judged. The regulatory impact assessment rejects a laissez-faire approach in paragraph 3.9 on page 25, saying that 
''it would not enable developments to proceed in a strategic manner nor would it satisfy environmental concerns. Furthermore the effect on other users of the sea could not be considered.'' 
Later, on page 27, it says: 
 ''The economic impact on other marine users such as the fishing and shipping industries could not be assessed or controlled effectively.'' 
I cannot think of a more important overriding duty to the maritime trade, which carries the vast bulk of our imports and exports, or to our hard-pressed fishing industry than to provide for the protection of the sea lanes essential to international navigation and—to keep the hon. Member for Waveney happy—the establishment of zones so that our wind farms are not in the middle of vital sea lanes. That is how we should progress. 
 I am aware that my name is attached to new clause 17, and I have a degree of embarrassment regarding that. The new clause states: 
 ''The Secretary of State for Transport shall set out procedures to be followed to prevent a collision taking place within a renewable energy installation''.
I am a great one for putting responsibilities on to Secretaries of State, but to expect one to prevent accidents in the zones by some magical process is, to put it delicately, for the birds.

Bob Blizzard: It is a wrecking amendment.

Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman is right; that would be a wrecking amendment. I delicately suggest that, while the sentiment is in the right direction, the obligation perhaps should be to reduce the chances of a collision.
 I turn now to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 186, which substitutes one of our old friends ''may'' and ''shall'' with ''is likely to''. It is a variant on a theme that I can only assume is a step up from a probing amendment. We should not get into a debate on conditional tenses of verbs and statistical probabilities, and I feel that it would be better to leave the drafting well alone. The existing wording of clause 100 ensures that new installations and safety zones may not be established where they will interfere with the use of sea lanes, and I do not believe that there is much to be added by supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. However, I understand that it will be helpful as a probing amendment to draw out the requirements from the Minister. 
 The Government's definition of the future seems to have been borrowed from a writer called Ambrose Bierce, who wrote ''The Cynic's Word Book'' of 1906. In it, he defined the future as: 
 ''That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true, and our happiness is assured.'' 
Throughout life, I have always adopted P.C. Johnson's motto, which is: 
 ''Cheer up! The worst is yet to come!'' 
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said at the start, there is a sad inevitability that there will be a collision in a zone with a wind farm. Statistically to say that it will never happen is unreal, and the Government should take that on board. If they are prepared to make various requirements for the aviation industry on how these big windmills should be marked, the same should surely apply for the maritime world. I have endeavoured to point out a few deficiencies in the Bill, such as how the authors have overlooked the needs of the maritime industry. We all await with bated breath the last-minute amendments to clauses 100 and 101.

Michael Weir: Listening to the debate I became rather depressed at the apparent entrenchment of attitudes on both sides of the Committee for and against offshore wind farms. Shipping and maritime interests and offshore wind farms are not mutually exclusive. I support the principle of offshore wind farms. They have a lot to recommend them, not least because we are almost unable to proceed with onshore wind farms as a result of the mounting objections to them.
 As the hon. Member for Waveney rightly said, if we are serious about renewable energy we have to look seriously at development offshore. On the other hand, he is wrong to dismiss the leisure industry. On the west coast of Scotland leisure boating is a considerable 
 economic interest and it is also growing on the east coast. The development of Arbroath harbour in my constituency for leisure craft is being looked at as a means of compensating for the decline in fishing. Fishermen themselves, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, have a real interest in what is happening in the North sea. 
 We need to reach a compromise between maritime interests and the new offshore energy industry. It would be disastrous for this country if we ignored other maritime interests and tried to push ahead with offshore wind. We could run into exactly the same problems as we have with onshore wind and become bogged down in public inquiries and complaints and objections from the maritime, shipping, fishing and leisure industries. The RSPB was mentioned. A huge range of interests can have legitimate concerns about offshore wind and they should be brought on board at this stage. 
 Clauses 100 and 101 go a long way to ensuring that maritime interests are protected. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on the two clauses. Like the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) I am disappointed that we have not seen the wording. That will be important. As long as those interests are consulted and taken on board prior to the installation of wind farms offshore, it will be a major step forward. 
 I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Vale of York said about maritime interests and I agreed with much of it. However, I cannot support amendment No. 170. I am concerned by the wording: 
''the applicant can demonstrate that there will no threat posed to navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.'' 
That is an impossible standard for any developer to meet. There will always be danger of collision and other accidents at sea. Even in shipping lanes without wind farms there are accidents at sea, sometimes with disastrous consequences. The Braer oil disaster off Shetland springs to mind. 
 A compromise is needed between maritime and shipping interests and wind farms. Shipping is important to the UK, particularly Scotland. Many ports are already suffering difficulties, not least because of the costs associated with new regulations brought in to deal with the perceived terrorist threat. Any further threat to ports could be commercially disastrous for them. However, a balance needs to be struck on these issues, so I am not prepared to support the present wording of amendment No. 170. I am prepared to support clauses 100 and 101 on the basis of the suggestion that they will be amended, but I urge the Minister to take on board the need to take account not only of shipping, but of fishing and the leisure boating industry. 
 No one will be 100 per cent. happy with what is produced, but it has been proved in the North sea that the issue is not new. When North Sea oil was first found and explored and when rigs were proposed, there was a dispute between fishermen and the oil 
 industry about navigation rights. That was exactly the same problem. However, it has been dealt with and there is relative calm between the industries now. 
 The North sea oil industry will have a considerable interest in this issue, because off Scotland many wind farms and oil rigs will be in similar areas. A considerable amount of shipping is generated by the North sea oil industry, not least in relation to the supply of rigs. All the interests must be brought together and a compromise reached. No one will be 100 per cent. happy, but we hope that we will at least have the development offshore, without the huge problems that we are running into onshore, which threaten to derail the whole process of renewable energy.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting debate on the amendments, and a good deal of attention has focused, rightly, on what the Transport Committee said in its interesting report. The Government will respond to that report in due course, but I want to raise now one point that the Committee made. It said that
''most of our witnesses felt that the Energy Bill itself provided an acceptable framework for subsequent development''. 
However, some of what the hon. Member for Vale of York said gave a rather different impression of the Committee's conclusion. It is important to balance what she said with what I have just quoted. At some points last week, it sounded as though she was telling the Committee that she was strongly in favour of renewable energy except those forms of it that were economically viable. 
 There is a danger in thinking that some future form of technology will allow us to make the transition to a much greater dependence on renewable energy in an impact-free way. The truth is that there is no such technology. We are looking at building up investment in renewable energy to at least £1 billion a year for perhaps the next 10 or 15 years, and it is not possible to have a programme on that scale with no impact. The question for the Committee and the House is whether we should manage the impacts as the Bill suggests, or stick with conventional forms of generation and all the problems of climate change and security of supply that they lumber us with. The fact that all members of the Committee say that they support renewable energy requires us to square up to managing the challenges. 
 Yesterday, I was in Edinburgh looking at the prototype of the Polamis device, which is one of the first wave generating units. It will shortly be towed to the European marine energy centre in the Orkneys, put through its paces there for a period of months and benchmarked to see how it gets on. That is promising technology, and the Department supports a number of other wave and tide technologies. I think that they will be important for us in future. 
 Of course, when we have substantial installations of that type of equipment, there will be issues about other maritime users and others who need to be thought about as well. That is what we have to do; we must manage the impacts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has said—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said it last 
 week—we must not put up hurdles that make it impossible to develop offshore renewables. I am familiar with the criticism that the Government are—

Laurence Robertson: Obsessed.

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury says, I am familiar with the criticism that the Government are obsessed with onshore wind farms, but the hon. Lady accused us in last week's sitting of being preoccupied with offshore wind farms. There is a constant tendency to say, ''What is happening at present in renewable energy is not what we want, but there is something else in the future.'' When we get to that something else, it turns out that there is a problem with that, too. The reality is that we must square up to how we can manage these impacts, and so benefit from renewable energy, as the Bill proposes.
 As to amendment No. 170, the necessary safeguards to minimise the risk of an offshore wind farm to navigation are already in place.

Desmond Turner: I tabled an amendment on marking, which was probably unnecessary. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can assure me that the renewable energy zones will be marked with the appropriate buoys and shown on Admiralty charts.

Stephen Timms: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance about marking on Admiralty charts, although at present the safety zones around oil and gas installations are not physically marked. I envisage that the same will apply to the safety zones we are discussing.

Desmond Turner: Therefore, it would be worth considering putting marks around the renewable energy zones in accordance with the normal buoyage convention, because if the projects are tidal stream zones or wave farms they may not be immediately obvious, as wind farms are.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about our position when we have wave and tide generating equipment, and his suggestion will certainly be considered at that stage, but I will not make marking a requirement for all the safety zones because, as we know in the case of oil and gas, it is not necessary.

Joan Walley: I do not want to make any waves, but what discussions is the Minister having on the matter with the Chamber of Shipping and Trinity House? How will he ensure that we can reach the third way, to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred?

Stephen Timms: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend. I had a useful meeting, and exchanged letters, with the Chamber of Shipping, which provided the basis for a very satisfactory resolution of its concerns and those expressed by others. I am confident that when we reach consideration on Report there will be general satisfaction with the outcome.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister referred to an exchange of correspondence, which will be of great importance in assessing the final outcome of any compromise that is proposed. Is he willing to publish the correspondence?

Stephen Timms: I am happy to send a copy of my letter to the Chamber of Shipping to each member of the Committee.
 On subsection (11) of amendment No. 170, the risk to navigation is already assessed under the Coast Protection Act 1949 consent process. There is no question of an offshore renewable installation being sited where it would pose an obstruction or a danger to navigation. The Coast Protection Act can also include provisions that require developers to adopt an active safety management system to enable an operator to shut down a wind farm in the event of an emergency such as a vessel colliding with a turbine or a major pollution incident. Provisions covering such a system, which must be approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, have more recently been included in transport and works orders and will be covered in any future wind farm consent. 
 On subsection (13)—the need to consult on site changes within the section 36 process—at the time developers submit an application, it will be on the basis of a firm site location that cannot be subject to change later. When an application is submitted, the developer is required to issue a public notice covering details of the application and the proposed site so that interested parties can make representations to the Secretary of State. Consent would be given or refused on the basis of that application. If the developer wanted to use another site, that would have to be the subject of a separate consent application, notified to the public in the normal way.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will recall that on Tuesday I asked him—to satisfy my own ignorance on the subject—who is the relevant planning authority, because that is not made clear in the Bill.

Stephen Timms: The consent applications are made to the Department of Trade and Industry; the Secretary of State will therefore issue the consent.
 With regard to the new clause, site selection is important in terms of minimising the risk of collision. The consent process provided for under the Coast Protection Act deals with that. Safety zones around installations are a further aid to safety, although the automatic creation of safety zones around every installation would not be a good idea. However, it is certainly right to consider whether a safety zone is needed. 
 In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), I referred to marking safety zones around structures on Admiralty charts. The general lighthouse authorities, on behalf of the Secretary of State, direct developers on the safe marking of renewable energy installations, ranging from painting and marking individual wind turbines to using marker buoys around the site where appropriate, and using other markers such as lanterns, 
 fog detectors, foghorns and radar reflectors. Some of those measures have already been put in place for the North Hoyle and Scroby Sands offshore wind farms. 
 On the emergency procedures that wind farm operators should follow in the event of a vessel colliding with a structure or a major pollution incident, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency requires developers to adopt an active safety management system. A pollution incident, such as an oil spillage following a collision, would be dealt with under the national contingency plan, which is administered by the MCA. If a vessel were to sink in water depths that constituted a danger to surface navigation, it would be the responsibility of the general lighthouse authorities to ensure that the danger was appropriately marked. 
 We will need a flexible process in which developers and operators work under the general direction of the general lighthouse authorities, the MCA and the search and rescue services to devise procedures and markings appropriate to each installation. Those arrangements would need to be subject to periodic review and to evolve in the light of experience and new information over time. 
 Amendment No. 164 raises the matter of consultation. I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that, were the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to assess the cumulative effects on the safety of navigation of installations and safety zones around them, it would be essential for there to be consultation with both the Secretary of State for Transport and the MCA. I hope that putting that assurance on the record in Hansard will be helpful. 
 It is not appropriate to include in the Bill a requirement for one Secretary of State to consult with another, because legally—and practically—they are indivisible and act collectively. The reference to the Secretary of State covers all Secretaries of State. Moreover, the MCA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport, which exercises the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport. So again, legally, no separate reference to it is necessary. 
 An additional point is that, in Scotland, the functions of assessing the effects of installations are devolved to Scottish Ministers, so the reference to the Secretary of State would not be right. 
 We have had much discussion about clauses 100 and 101. As I said in an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking on Second Reading that we would retain the principles enshrined in the clause, but would want to introduce amendments to make it workable. I am not in a position to table such amendments for the Committee's consideration. I would have liked to have done so, but the work involved in getting them right has made it impossible and I apologise for that. We will table them on Report, but, contrary to what the hon. Member for Vale of York thought I would say, I ask the Committee to retain the current wording of clause 100.

Andrew Stunell: I appreciate the Minister's emollient words. Will he consider publishing the proposed clauses as soon as possible so that there is opportunity for discussion before consideration on Report?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable request and I shall see what I can do to make the proposals available as soon as possible.

Richard Page: I endorse the remark of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. If the marvellous wording, which will apparently bring sweetness, light and harmony to those clauses, is not satisfactory, we will want the opportunity to table amendments in response.

Stephen Timms: I will do what I can to assist the Committee. The advantage of including in clause 100 the language of paragraph 7 of article 60 of the UN convention, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, is to make that commitment part of national law and therefore enforceable by our courts. The difficulty with the current form of words is that it creates a set of free-floating obligations. It is unclear who has responsibility for ensuring that those obligations are met and the circumstances in which they apply. The current wording could lead to confusion and litigation. We would like to avoid that, and the amendments that I shall table will ensure that we have a clear, workable provision.
 Similarly, the main difficulty with clause 101 is that the reference to the Secretary of State will not work. Although safety zones are a matter for the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers are responsible for assessing whether renewable energy installations off Scotland are likely to cause an obstruction or a danger to navigation. We will consider that wording before proceedings on Report. 
 Unlike the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, I think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made a good case for amendment No. 186. I accept that the use of the word ''may'' in clause 100 introduces vagueness to the provision. When we reconsider the wording of that clause, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I intend to use his alternative wording in the version of the clause introduced on Report. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York pressed me on the question of funding research. The Government's undertaking in the other place still stands to fund research on the effects of wind farms on ships' communications systems. A number of additional studies have been identified as priorities for Government funding to help to improve our understanding of the potential impact of offshore wind farms on navigation and to provide clearer guidance to developers and decision makers. We will support that work to ensure maximum confidence in our knowledge of the impacts of the developments.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. People say that a week is a long time in politics, and a great deal has happened since the Committee last adjourned. I thank the Minister for his conciliatory speech. I shall respond to the points raised
 by the hon. Member for Waveney, who, unlike me and other members of the Transport Committee, may not be quite so familiar with the report.
 In reaching an accommodation, it will be the wish of the Committee that the Bill—as the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee concluded that it is a good framework and basis on which to build—should be workable and should recognise the fact that a number of interests are at play. 
 I commend to the Committee the map drawn up by the Crown Estate, and in particular I refer the hon. Member for Waveney to the round 2 wind farm sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned the proposed site on the approaches to Morecambe bay. I refer the hon. Gentleman to sites on the accesses to the Humber and Thames estuaries. 
 Like my hon. Friends, I express utter amazement at the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the role played by the recreational boating industry, especially considering his constituency. He will have a hard enough task at the next election, and he does not need me to draw attention to that fact. Having had the honour and privilege to serve north Essex and south Suffolk—as well as, originally, north-east Essex—for 10 years, I had many meetings with the boating industry and, in particular, the recreational industry. There are many boat manufacturers along the coast—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) referred to them, although they are not unique to Scotland—and they make a contribution to economic development. Such craft also bring a lot of pleasure.

Bob Blizzard: I can tell the hon. Lady that the installation of the wind turbines at Scroby Sands is already attracting great interest from recreational boat owners. The turbines are bringing more boat owners to our area, not fewer.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have received the same briefings as me, but he does not seem to be aware that both the Royal Yachting Association and the British marine industry have brought to the attention of this Committee, as is the case with the Transport Committee, the dangers of having such a large site without a safety zone. I bow to your experience as a navigator, Mr. Sayeed, but I believe that such an arrangement means that the recreational craft would be funnelled into commercial shipping lanes.
 I pay tribute to the work of the Chamber of Shipping in alerting the other place and the Committee to that danger, but not only that body fielded the concern. The Port of London Authority, Trinity House, the British marine industry, the Royal Yachting Association and a host of other bodies representing the shipping industries also made their anxieties known, as did the fishing industry, as the hon. Member for Angus mentioned earlier. 
 I am sure the Minister accepts that to make the wind farms economically viable, authority will be sought to build them as close to land as possible, where the wind is strongest and transporting electricity cheapest. As 
 the map shows us, the round 2 wind farm sites will be, by definition, in some of the busiest, most lucrative commercial shipping lanes.

Stephen Timms: For clarification, I should say that in all the round 2 areas, there is a margin of at least 8 km from the shore to the zones that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome that clarification, but following a visit to a North sea oil rig on a placement with BP—the alarming experience of being landed from a helicopter on to an oil platform is not one that I want to repeat, although I obviously enjoyed it at the time—I understand that there is a safety zone around each oil rig. What is unique about wind farms is that there will be large spaces between each turbine, while the zone will also occupy a lot of space. I refer the Minister to my comments on the call in UNCLOS to have regard to other activities and urge him, as we will consider later, to place a safety zone around each installation.
 The Department for Transport gave evidence to the Transport Committee, which published its findings on 4 May. I find it extraordinary that in the meantime the Government have not had the opportunity to draft the form of words. I echo the requests for us to be given advance warning and for the new form of words to be published so that we can carry out our own consultations. We do not necessarily wish to introduce our own form of words as we understand that clauses 100 and 101 are workable as they stand. 
 I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's acceptance of our arguments. He wrote to us to say that the Government wished to delete clauses 100 and 101 but we are now able to keep them. I pay tribute to the efforts of our noble Friends in the other place in achieving that. 
 We have had an excellent debate. We had to table an amendment calling for official consultation by the Department for Transport and the MCA because the Transport Committee recorded its disappointment at there being no consultation. Are the Government genuinely joined up, as it is regrettable that that consultation did not take place? 
 In view of the debate and the Minister's comments, and with the proviso that we may need to return to the matter if the new wording is unsatisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in
clause 94, page 73, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
 Subsection (4) prevents Scottish Ministers from exercising power under the clause unless they get the say so of the Secretary of State. We will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the purpose of that subsection because it seems entirely otiose to us. What is his objection to allowing Scottish Ministers to decide on some of these important matters relating to the offshore renewable energy industry in and around Scotland? 
 The clause deals with holding inquiries, setting conditions and granting consents. Those all seem entirely proper matters for Scottish Ministers to consider. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider transferring the powers? I refer the Minister to his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes on 10 June about the exercise of order-making powers in relation to clauses 85, 86 and 88. This appears to be another version of the same issue of orders being made by the Secretary of State. 
 There appears to us—on the face of it and considering the clause—to be every possible reason for those powers being exercised at regional or the Scottish level, so we are rather surprised to find subsection (4) here. We hope that this can be a short debate, the Minister can explain everything to us and we can all be happy, but that subsection appears to be an unnecessary and restrictive addition.

Michael Weir: I, too, have some questions. Subsection (4) refers to section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that Orders in Council can be made for Scottish Ministers to make provision in relation to matters that would normally be reserved to Ministers at Westminster. I presume that that is why this measure is included.
 We had a debate last week on jurisdiction over the waters off the coast of Scotland, and, like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I asked the Minister to confirm the reasoning behind the provision. In the debate on clauses 85, 87 and 88, I questioned whether the jurisdiction aspect of the Bill is correct and quoted to him the terms of the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which defines Scotland's waters. That seems to have been overlooked in other clauses. 
 The subsection that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove seeks to delete relates to planning matters, which are devolved. In normal circumstances, Scottish Ministers would be responsible for all planning applications relating to renewable energy. The Minister may remember that there was a debate, I think last year, on the planning aspects of nuclear power stations in which it was shown that Scottish Ministers have the ultimate planning authority in those respects. I think it has been established that the Scottish Ministers are the ultimate planning authority in Scotland for all energy installations. 
 The question in this case seems to relate to jurisdiction in the seas. The Minister, if I remember correctly, and certainly the Bill, maintain that Scottish Ministers have jurisdiction only to the 12-mile limit as defined in certain sections of the Scotland Act. However, as I pointed out last week, that is not in all sections of the Act, and, in particular, no reference is made to the 1968 order. Will he confirm that if Scottish Ministers have jurisdiction in respect of the whole of defined Scottish waters in the North sea, they automatically have planning jurisdiction in respect of offshore energy installations?

Stephen Timms: I agree that Scottish Ministers should have responsibility for section 36 consents within the part of the renewable energy zone that will be designated under clause 85(5). It makes sense for Scottish Ministers to be responsible for all section 36 consents in offshore waters. The way to give effect to that decision is an Order in Council under section 63 of the Scotland Act, as clause 94(4) of this Bill makes clear.
 As we have heard and discussed before, Scottish Ministers already have responsibility for deciding on applications for section 36 consents in respect of generating stations in Scotland, including renewable energy developments in the territorial waters adjacent to Scotland. However, as electricity generation is reserved to the UK Parliament under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, that executive function was devolved by means of a transfer of functions order made under Scotland Act powers. 
 Use of those powers ensured that the executive devolution of functions could be considered by the UK and the Scottish Parliaments. That is the most appropriate way to do things and what we will do in this case. There are a number of benefits. For example, the fact that Scottish Ministers are acquiring new functions should be drawn to the attention of the Scottish Parliament, and this device allows that to happen. 
 I cannot go all the way with the point that the hon. Member for Angus put to me. Planning matters may be devolved, but the generation of electricity is reserved, so consent to a generating station is reserved, although by the device that I explained, it will be executively devolved.

Andrew Stunell: The subsection states that the powers are not exercisable ''except'' in certain circumstances, but I think that the Minister is saying that they are exercisable only ''if'' certain circumstances apply, and giving a clear indication that it is his intention that the powers shall be transferred in due course. I see him shaking his head—or perhaps he is nodding; it does not usually appear in Hansard if a Minister nods his head. The phraseology implies that the powers will not be transferred in a normal situation, whereas I understand that he is saying—or nodding—that they will be transferred in that situation. Provided that the Minister nods again, which he has done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this we may take New Clause 20—Assessment of offshore renewable generation—
 '(1) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act, present to both Houses of Parliament a report on off-shore renewable technologies that—
(a) identifies the areas most suitable for offshore generation of electricity, and
(b) includes an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of developing generation in these areas.
 (2) The above report shall include, but not be limited to, assessments for generation by means of wind power, wave power, and tidal stream energy.'.

Brian White: I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and the Minister that this is a probing amendment. I appreciate that that will disappoint the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, but I am used to doing that.
 There is an obsession in the Committee, especially in connection with this clause, with offshore wind farms. The purpose of the new clause is to draw attention to other technologies such as tidal waves and undersea turbines, which can use the advantages of our coastline. It suggests that the Government should carry out a strategic environmental assessment of the scope for developing those technologies. 
 Our coast is favourable to the development of many of those technologies. The Government have already accepted that approach in the work they have done on offshore wind, and the new clause would help the deployment of those technologies. It would allow renewables companies some stability, and the security of knowing that there was a way forward. The market would know that those companies would be making proposals, and ensure that they had access.

Richard Page: I am quite supportive of the proposal, but I cannot see it being included in the Bill. The ingenuity being proposed for wind farms is being exploited in other areas, and I declare an interest. Wind farms are tying up with small gas deposits in the North sea, where they will generate electricity on site and use the expensive cabling to put the power into the system. For once the hon. Gentleman has got something right, and I congratulate him on the proposal.

Brian White: I suppose it had to happen some time that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that I am right. I hope that because strategic environmental assessments are the direct result of an EU directive, we do not get the knee-jerk reaction that they must be wrong—not that I would suggest that Opposition Members react in that way.
 There are technologies in which Britain has a head start, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, that provides several opportunities. The proposal would give British companies the opportunity to use the advantages of our North sea oil and gas technologies, and by promoting strategic environmental assessments and doing preliminary work, the Government would give a major boost to the renewables industry. It has been suggested that wave power could produce 87 turbo hours per year, but even if it provided a quarter of that, that would be a substantial increase in what is put into the grid—equivalent to the whole of the combined heat and power industry. 
 The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to accelerate their programme, which I have no doubt they will do at some point. However, if it is done early there will be many more benefits, which would tie in with the advantages of offshore wind.

Anne McIntosh: I wish to repeat my earlier question to the Minister. We are told in the explanatory notes that the Electricity Act 1989, as it applies to the clause, is amended with regard to public inquiries. The clause refers to the jurisdiction of
''one or more relevant planning authorities.'' 
Which are the relevant planning authorities to which anybody wishing to contest consent would apply? The Minister's earlier answer did not cover that. 
 More generally, the regulatory impact assessment states: 
 ''The main costs that the developers will incur will be those associated with putting together applications for consent for new developments.'' 
 I have had a long correspondence with both this Minister and his fellow Minister—his lady colleague who responded to me about the costs. On the subject of wind farms, the Minister for Industry and the Regions replied that: 
 ''The Transmission Issues Working Group reported in June 2003 that the overall cost to connect an additional 12 GW of renewable energy generation to the GB network would cost £2.1 billion. National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy are currently revising these costs.''—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 884W.] 
What would the costs be to the developer of the consents procedure for one wind farm? Were that consent to be applied, what are the costs of connecting to the grid? We requested that information from the developers, as well as the comparative costs of offshore and onshore farms. I welcome the Minister's commitment to increase research, and we await the studies with great interest. However, presumably he will confirm that the cost of consent and connecting to the grid will be much greater for offshore wind farms than for onshore wind farms. 
 I admit to being a squirrel, and I have here a cutting from the business pages of The Sunday Telegraph of 23 February 2003, which says: 
 ''Wind power will push up household electricity bills.'' 
The Government consistently accuse us of not being in favour of renewable energy. If renewable energy sources will push up the cost of household electricity bills, I am minded to be more cautious than to give offshore wind farms our 100 per cent. endorsement at this stage before a general election. 
 In a written question on Tuesday 25 May, I mentioned the diseconomy of part-time operation from both offshore and onshore generation and the economic impact of that, including the fact that back-up generation will be required to ensure security and stability of supply. I assume that the Minister stands by his reply that: 
 ''Although wind generation is undoubtedly less predictable and more intermittent than conventional generation, when aggregated nationally, the implications for the operation of the electricity system are significantly mitigated. Work by the National Grid Company indicates that it will be some years before the growth in wind generation has a noticeable impact on overall reserve plant requirements, although there will come a time when additional reserve will be required.''—[Official Report, 25 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1567W.] 
Will the Minister confirm that not only will this form of renewable energy be more costly to produce, but that, as we have been told, just one onshore wind 
 farm will require a subsidy of £2.1 billion? Will he also confirm that it will not be economically viable on its own, but will require back-up generation, so we are some distance from being able to say that onshore or offshore wind farms will be a regular source of supply? 
 Will the Minister also take this opportunity to put a figure on the cost if the consent under the clause is agreed and approved? I believe that he said that the distance would be no greater than 8 km. Will he confirm that the electricity will be underground, but that when it comes on to land there will have to be a separate application for consent to transmit it by pylons? He will be aware that feelings are still running extremely high in the Vale of York over the most recent overhead line transmission. Any offshore or onshore wind farm requiring similar pylons will be hugely unpopular. How will the Minister address that politically? 
 There are several issues to be addressed. First, we need to know which are the relevant planning authorities so that we can direct those who want a public inquiry to them. Will the Minister confirm the total cost of the consent for one wind farm? Will he also confirm that the sum required to apply for the consent to generate and transport electricity will be far higher for offshore wind farms than for onshore ones?

Desmond Turner: I support new clause 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I am glad that it is a probing amendment because in this case, the Government probably do not need further primary legislation to carry out those activities if they so wish. It would be useful if they were to start sponsoring these activities now in anticipation of deploying tidal stream power in particular, which could provide something that other renewable sources have not been able to provide so far: predictable baseline power. Wind cannot provide it because it is variable. As you will know, Mr. Sayeed, the times of tides around our shores vary by as much as six hours. If we site tidal stream generating areas judiciously to take advantage of the different timings of tides, we can guarantee that a minimum percentage of that power will be available at any time of the day. The Government are uniquely placed to carry out the preparation for that strategic deployment. They can also relate that to the future development and strengthening of the grid. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister to consider setting out these assessments in the very near future, so that we know exactly where to put the machines as soon as they are ready for deployment in two or three years.

Bob Blizzard: New paragraph (7A)(7) of schedule 8 to the 1989 Act deals with an inquiry where a planning authority makes an exception. New sub-paragraph (7) limits the inquiry to land within the area of the authority by which the objection has been made, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. Why is that provision necessary? If a planning authority makes an objection to a development outside the land
 for which the authority is responsible, in what circumstances would my hon. Friend the Minister allow an inquiry? If we allow it, is there not a danger of becoming bogged down in ''inquiryism''?
 This country has a serious problem with the time it takes us to make progress on major infrastructure projects, be they in energy or transport. Ours is a democratic society and we are proud of our model of transparent governance in which everyone has a say, but we must be mindful of our rate of progress. We might find out that we simply cannot move around readily enough to meet our economic needs, or that we do not have sufficient generating power to keep the lights on, because it takes us too long to build the infrastructure. I do not want to sweep aside the proper processes, but we must ensure that they are less slow. 
 Under new sub-paragraph (9), if the Secretary of State wants to allow an inquiry regarding a piece of land outside the area of the planning authority, two separate inquiries may be required: one on the land that falls within the area of the planning authority, and one on the land that falls outside it. If the Secretary of State were minded to go down that road, why would we need two separate inquiries? Is that not a recipe for confusion? Could we not at least roll up the inquiries into one, so that undue time is not spent on process and we achieve our aims?

Andrew Stunell: When the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East and for South-West Hertfordshire get together, I presume we have a White-Page amendment. The idea of more reporting and, hence, more accountability on the part of the Government for future energy needs and possibilities an important one, which my hon. Friends and I support. The Minister might wish to make the point that if clause 1 is redrafted, the provision will be considered for inclusion in it. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made the important point that, without foresight and planning at strategic level, some of the technological opportunities may be missed altogether. For what it is worth, I support the probing new clause.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York outlined the finer points of the clause. She stated that investment in renewables potentially increases the cost to consumers of electricity. In fact, investment in anything potentially increases the cost of electricity to consumers—for example, investment in nuclear power certainly would as well. If there were no market intervention whatever, there would be no investment at the present time, because we have an apparent working surplus of generation capacity. Any further investment would be in gas generation, which does not solve the problem. We need to keep a sense of proportion when trying to link investment in generating technology to increases in costs. I am sure that the hon. Lady will reflect on that. 
 The hon. Lady asked the Minister to comment on the overall system costs of investing in offshore generation capacity, including the cost of bringing the electricity ashore and transmitting it to the point of consumption. The Minister might want to confirm in his winding-up speech that the greatest growth in 
 power demand is in south-east England and that if we want to reduce both power losses and investment costs of transmission, it would make sense to install the largest possible proportion of new generation capacity in or near the south-east. In that respect, I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his support for clause 129, which relates to micro-generation, which is certainly one way forward.

Stephen Timms: I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said when moving new clause 20. The DTI has already commissioned a study of the offshore renewable energy resource; it is due to be completed this summer and I confirm that the final report will be made available to Parliament. The objective of the first part of the new clause will therefore be met.
 Renewable energy development within the renewable energy zone will be restricted to energy generation that harnesses the power of the wind or the sea. The study will include all potential renewable energy resources that fall within that description; it will therefore go as far as it can to assess the resource for all foreseeable offshore sources of renewable energy. As far as possible, that answers subsection (2) of the new clause. 
 Subsection (1)(b) of the new clause states that the report should include an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of offshore electricity generation. A strategic environmental assessment will be a requirement under EC directive 2001/42/EC, which the UK has to implement this summer. As my hon. Friend knows, we are firmly committed to the strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, process. We initiated an SEA programme for offshore renewables before the directive took effect to assess the impact of offshore wind farms. Initially, we focused on the areas that we planned to make available to developers to apply for site leases in the round 2 competition for offshore wind farm sites. That exercise had a big effect on the areas being considered. For example, areas having the greatest environmental sensitivity in terms of visual impact or the potential impact on birds were excluded from the competition. That was the reason for the 8-km coastal exclusion strip to which I referred in an earlier intervention. The assessment of three strategic areas for round 2 is the first phase of a comprehensive programme of work to assess the potential impact of all the UK's offshore renewable energy resources. 
 The new clause suggests a time scale. I think that it will take a good deal longer than two years to complete the work. There will be two parts to the strategic environmental assessment programme, the first of which is gathering the necessary data through desktop studies and by sending boats out to sea. The programme is based on the waters around the UK being divided into eight strategic areas, and we already have the data needed for five of them. We hope to have completed the data collection for all eight areas by 2008, which is still some time away. In some cases, we might need to top up the information that we hold: for example, the first areas covered were considered with oil and gas in mind. Most of the information needed 
 for renewables is the same, but we are likely to require some additional data. The SEA programme is now integrated to cover renewables as well as oil and gas. 
 The second part of the process consists of taking the data collected and testing it against a plan or a programme. That is likely to take the form of an oil and gas licensing and exploration round or a competition for site leases for offshore renewables installations. We need a clear idea of the activity that is being contemplated, so that we can test the plans against the environmental data. The SEA process is designed to test essential issues such as the extent of development in a strategic area that could be undertaken without significant impact on the local environment. The basic data gathering will be finished by 2008. I am not able to say when the second part of the process will be completed for each area. That will depend on future decisions about when issuing more site leases might be appropriate. I agree with the intent behind the new clause, but I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have in place the safeguards needed to ensure that inappropriate development does not take place. 
 To respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, section 36(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 requires the obtaining from the Secretary of State of a consent for the construction, extension or operation of a generating station. The requirement for an Electricity Act consent, together with the requirement for a DEFRA licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and a Department for Transport consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949, are the legislative tools by which Government regulates offshore generating stations. Clause 94(1) confirms that section 36 applies to generating stations in territorial waters, and extends the requirement for a licence to generating stations in the renewable energy zone. The hon. Lady asked who the relevant planning authorities are. The consenting authorities are those that I have listed. For offshore areas, there are no planning authorities in the normal sense because, by and large, planning jurisdiction extends only to the shoreline. Planning authorities in the locality may make objections if they choose to. Where an offshore development has an installation onshore, such as a substation, the planning authority has a role in relation to the onshore part of the development.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister define ''in the locality'' further? Does that mean the locality of the place where the electricity is brought in to land? Also, will he confirm that people wishing to call for a public inquiry should apply to his Department? It is not clear in the Bill whether they should go there or directly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Stephen Timms: Let me give a little more clarification. In terms of what ''in the locality'' means, each local authority has a planning role in relation to anything that takes place in its area, so in the case of an onshore installation linked to an offshore wind farm or
 renewable energy generating device, the local authority for that area has planning jurisdiction in respect of that installation.

Anne McIntosh: It is important that we know what the procedures are. The explanatory notes for clause 94 specifically refer to circumstances in which a public inquiry will be called for. Will the Minister tell us what the procedures would be?

Stephen Timms: The clause has an important purpose in respect of the role of local planning authorities in relation to offshore generating stations. Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act requires that applications for consent to construct, extend or operate a generating station under section 36 must be served on the relevant local planning authority. Where that local planning authority maintains an objection to the application, the Secretary of State must hold a public inquiry. That schedule was drafted before offshore generating stations were a reality.
 The purpose of clause 94(2) is to clarify the role of local planning authorities if the application for consent relates to a generating station that is offshore and therefore not in a local planning authority's jurisdiction. We propose that local planning authorities should not have the right to force a public inquiry in respect of those parts of a generating station that are outside their jurisdiction, so they could not force inquiries into developments that were wholly offshore. However, local planning authorities retain the right to require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry in respect of onshore developments associated with offshore works, if the onshore developments fall within their jurisdiction.

Anne McIntosh: That is as clear as mud. My question remains; if someone wishes to call for a public inquiry into an offshore consent, as the Bill appears to suggest is possible, to whom do they apply? Do they apply to the Department of Trade and Industry or directly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? I am slightly more confused about the onshore situation after the Minister's eloquent explanation, but I am still concerned about public inquiries for offshore installations.

Stephen Timms: People would apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope that I made clear the circumstances in which a local authority could force a public inquiry. It can do so if there is something onshore in its area for which it has planning responsibility. Of course, local planning authorities might well have an interest in generating stations offshore, particularly if they are planned to be quite near to shore. We plan to make the local planning authority a statutory consultee in the section 36 process through regulations under schedule 8.
 There is no simple answer to the hon. Lady's question about the costs of connecting an offshore wind farm to the onshore grid. It will depend on where the offshore wind farm is and where it connects, which 
 will vary from case to case. One benefit of identifying the three areas that we did in the round 2 exercise is that several wind farms in close proximity to one another will be able to link up for their onshore connection, substantially reducing the overall cabling costs. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was right to draw attention to the interesting proposal to bring together gas generation and wind generation offshore. That highlights the big cost of connection onshore. The more that can be shared, the more economically viable it becomes. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether investment in renewable energy would increase costs. The way in which the renewables obligation works means that electricity costs will increase. We need substantial investment to bring about the scale of renewable electricity generation that all members of the Committee have said they want, and that investment must be paid for. 
 The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the figure of £2.1 billion that has been identified for investment in the grid. Some of that money would be required anyway, because some grid assets are pretty old and need replacing. Some of it is entirely new and results from the more distributed pattern of electricity generation that we will see in future. However, there is no getting away from the fact that if we want investment, it must be paid for. The hon. Lady also asked about pylons.

Anne McIntosh: Before the Minister leaves the point about costs, will he confirm that household bills will increase, because the bill for the £2.1 billion will be passed on to the customers of National Power, Scottish Power and all the other companies? That will increase the cost of electricity to householders and, presumably, businesses.

Stephen Timms: Investment in the grid will have to be paid for by electricity consumers. Ofgem is undertaking a price review exercise looking at all the electricity companies' proposals for investment, all of which will need to be paid for. We cannot have investment without the means to fund it.

Brian White: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole point of introducing NETA was to reduce retail electricity prices and have not consumers already benefited as a result of the Utilities Act 2000?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Electricity prices are close to a 30-year low. The Government have done a great deal to reduce prices. It remains our view that the operation of the competitive market will help to keep prices to the lowest level, but the necessary investment will have to be paid for.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked me about pylons. There is no such thing as a popular pylon; I have never seen one. We all accept that they are needed. Section 37 of the Electricity Act sets out the mechanism for obtaining consent and that consent is required for any overhead line. That applies onshore to all such lines, whatever the source of the electricity. I have no doubt that we will need some more pylons in future just as we have done in the past. 
 I hope that that covers the points that the hon. Lady made on clause stand part. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was concerned about there being a danger of too many public inquiries. I understand that concern. The Secretary of State has the discretion to hold a single inquiry or to hold two if she thinks that it is more appropriate. It is for her to judge the most appropriate way forward. The Bill allows some flexibility in how that can best be done. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to ensure that this process and these consents are issued as expeditiously as possible.

Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend deal with the other issue that I mentioned? Under what circumstances would he allow an inquiry following an objection by a planning authority to a development outside the land for which it is responsible?

Stephen Timms: It is difficult to set down precisely what the criteria will be. It will be for the Secretary of State to consider the objection from the local authority and to make a judgment about whether that objection is of sufficient weight that a public inquiry is required. If objections have been made by others the Secretary of State may choose to widen the scope of the inquiry to consider them. Neighbouring authorities might be affected and the clause allows the inquiry to be rolled up to deal with both sets of objections. As in a number of instances a judgment will have to be made by the Secretary of State here. Local authorities will not be able require that a public inquiry be held as they can onshore, but the Secretary of State will be able to agree to a public inquiry if she feels that is right.

Brian White: As the Minister outlined, we have seen the benefits of a strategic environmental assessment with the development of offshore wind and I welcome the fact that the process is underway. I am concerned that we might be taking too narrow a view because of bureaucratic convenience and I urge him to ensure that that is not the case.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown could have mentioned a number of projects, such as Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. in Scotland, La Rance tidal power station in France, or the prototype being developed by the IT Power consortium in west Devon and Cornwall with the help of an EU grant. They indicate the tremendous potential of alternative offshore renewable projects. In not pressing my new clause, I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no undue delay and that the Government's leadership maximises potential for renewable projects. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Safety zones around renewable energy installations

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in
clause 96, page 74, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'for' and insert
 'The Secretary of State shall, in connection with every application for renewable energy installations'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 172, in 
clause 96, page 74, line 10, leave out 'he may'. 
New clause 18— 
 'Each application for a consent under section 94 shall set out the location of a safety zone around installations.'.

Anne McIntosh: The purpose of the amendments is to press the Minister to insist that for every application for renewable energy installations a safety zone will be considered around them. This is the opportunity for him to explain the circumstances in which he envisages there not being a safety zone around a wind farm. The evidence heard by the Transport Committee was clear. Installations pose greater peril because they are in busy shipping lanes for recreational and particularly commercial traffic. There are safety zones around offshore oil rigs, so why will there be safety zones around only certain offshore farms?
 According to the explanatory notes, the clause gives 
''a discretionary power to the Secretary of State to issue a notice declaring one or more safety zones around a renewable energy installation.'' 
When the Secretary of State chooses to exercise that discretion, will his decision be debatable in the House? We are further told: 
 ''The Secretary of State has the flexibility to declare a safety zone as appropriate for the main stages of the life of renewable energy installation—the construction, extension and decommissioning phases''. 
The biggest potential problems with relation to this clause and little group of amendments may come about at the time of decommissioning. 
 I again pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It draws on its experience of the proposed offshore wind farm at Shell flat, Liverpool bay. According to a representative: 
''our concern is not so much about birds being chopped up in the blades of turbines, but rather about the potential disturbance impacts for the scoters of regular boat trips to maintain the turbines.'' 
I draw the Committee's attention to today's Order Paper, which refers to a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has revived. It is similar to his previous Bill and has been introduced as a ten-minute Bill. Of course, I cannot find the reference to quote its title when I need it, but the Bill is about marine life and conservation. I am sure that the Committee would want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that. 
 As the Minister will know, there is a particular concern that Denmark and other European Union countries are more advanced in offshore wind farms than we are. As with onshore installations, the noise, the environmental factors and their effect on human health are causing increased concern to such an extent that houses in Denmark cannot easily be sold if they are close to onshore wind farms. There is growing concern about the disbenefits and dangers to marine life. I would be hard-pressed to claim that fish suffer disbenefits, but there is scientific evidence to prove that dolphins, porpoises and sea life can be damaged by the drone, for want of a better word, from the wind turbines. We should consider the cumulative effect; the Committee will be aware of the huge size of the installations that are envisaged. I urge the Minister to ensure that a safety zone is included in each case. 
 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that the available evidence for offshore installations is similar to that for onshore, 
''namely that the development of wind energy need not be a problem for birds as long as proper environmental impact assessments of any proposed development take place''. 
Will the consideration of such environmental impact assessments determine whether the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion under clause 96? 
 The RSPB is also concerned about the possibility of damage to marine life if there is not a safety zone during decommissioning. I would extend that concern, as we are concerned not only with protecting birds. As we have said, we have concerns for other users such as the shipping industry. Before I leave the subject of birds, the Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is a leading twitcher and well known member of the RSPB. 
 New clause 18 is self-explanatory. It would provide: 
 ''Each application for a consent under section 94 shall set out the location of a safety zone around installations.'' 
In my humble submission, it would greatly enhance the safety of the installations if the Secretary of State provided safety zones in that way. 
 The Minister may like to put on record the sheer size and volume of wind farms, particularly of those in the applications under round 2. Will he also be good enough to explain whether, when a safety zone is created, it will encompass all of the wind farm? The evidence that the Transport Committee took from the shipping industry was that it might be dangerous for ships to have to pass between individual wind turbines. It would be in the interests of all users—including birds, marine life generally and the shipping industry—for a safety zone to be considered. If the installations are to be treated differently from offshore oil rigs, perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee why.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Lady assures us that she is in favour of renewable energy, and even said once that she was in favour of offshore wind energy, but she comes up with ever more creative objections to it. I have heard no objections on the grounds of the impact of noise on house prices.
 I have been to all the UK offshore wind farms: North Hoyle, off the coast of Rhyl, which cannot be heard from onshore; Scroby Sands, off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, near Great Yarmouth, which is much closer to the shore than North Hoyle, but which I do not think can be heard; and Blyth, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I could not hear the turbines going round there either. There is no danger of people being troubled by the sound of turbines that are some miles offshore, and I think that we can comfortably assume that they will not cause difficulties.

Anne McIntosh: I was drawing a parallel, saying that just as with onshore wind farms, offshore ones are affecting Danish house prices. I do not know whether the Minister speaks Danish, but I refer him to the article in Berlingske Tidende, which interviewed me two weeks ago, and with which I have regular contact. It concluded that house prices have been affected. I was saying not that offshore would affect house prices but that onshore created such a noise that it has affected house prices. I also said that there is evidence that offshore wind farms damage marine life.

Stephen Timms: I am glad that we have established that offshore wind farms are not affecting people's house prices; that is helpful. As I said earlier, all these changes have an impact, as one cannot invest £1 billion a year over the next 10 years without having an impact; the question is whether we can successfully manage that. We cannot, on one hand, say that we are in favour of renewable energy and, on the other hand, say every time there is a difficulty that we had better not go ahead. The hon. Lady falls into that trap from time to time.
 The Transport Committee made it clear that it is in favour of automatic safety zones around all offshore wind farms, as the proposal would provide, and the Government will respond to the Committee's report in due course. 
 We should stick with the policy in the Bill that safety zones should be in place where there is a demonstrable need for them, rather than their being automatic. I can assure the Committee that appropriate safety zones will be established wherever there is a case for them on safety grounds, and I expect that that will be in most cases, but not in all. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is the Government's advisers on marine safety matters, and the Health and Safety Executive support a case-by-case approach and agree that it would not be right to apply a safety zone automatically. 
 It is unlikely that maritime users would support the hon. Lady's position. The fishing industry sponsored unsuccessful amendments to the Bill during its passage through the other place which would have exempted fishing vessels from the operation of the safety zone scheme. The hon. Lady has referred a number of times to leisure users; the Royal Yachting Association has concerns about the principle of safety zones because of the possibility that recreational sailors would find themselves facing criminal charges if they accidentally 
 entered a safety zone. Following written evidence from the Royal Yachting Association to its inquiry, the Transport Committee recognised that exceptions for smaller craft may well be appropriate. However, that is not picked up in the amendment. If we followed the approach suggested by the amendment, the Secretary of State would have to declare a safety zone around every installation and even around wind farms sited on sandbanks in very shallow waters where only small craft could navigate in any case. That may be the most likely instance in which a zone would not be required. 
 In light of all the interests that would be affected, it would not be appropriate to force a safety zone around every installation come what may. That would incur costs for the owners and for the Government in enforcing such a regime, and there would be instances of otherwise perfectly law-abiding innocent people accidentally entering a safety zone in a small boat and being guilty of a criminal offence. That would be disproportionate in the circumstances. 
 We are committed to ensuring that the waters around our shores are as safe as possible. We want safety zones where they are needed, but automatically placing a safety zone around every installation is not justified in this case. Neither the Bill nor I propose that there should be a parliamentary process surrounding the declaration of safety zones. It can be left to others to do that. 
 The hon. Lady asked about birds in connection with safety zones. I did not entirely understand her question. Safety zones are intended for the safety of navigation and to avoid ships colliding with wind farms. We cannot expect birds to respect safety zones around wind farms. Perhaps she was making a different point, but I do not think that safety zones impact on birds.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. On the last point, I think that the RSPB is particularly concerned about boats trips that will take twitchers out to areas close to new installations. That organisation has placed on the record the fact that although, like members of the Committee, it is broadly in favour of developing renewable energy sources, it believes that the pleas on one or two outstanding issues, which were raised in the House of Lords and which we have raised on its behalf here, have fallen on deaf ears.
 I am afraid that I do not accept the Minister's platitudes. We are discussing installations that are much bigger and cover a bigger area than others and that are bang in the middle of commercial and recreational shipping lanes. I do not expect him to be an expert on transport. I am relatively new to this brief and I do not have the same command of the subject as him, but I have spent 20 years being involved, in one shape or form, with transport policy. I have the greatest respect for him, but it beggars belief that he does not see that a large installation placed in a busy commercial shipping lane will be an obstacle to shipping and to birds.

Stephen Timms: I will have another go. Not all offshore wind farms will be in such shipping lanes. In fact, I expect the number of wind farms that are to be quite modest. Some offshore wind farms will be on sandbanks in shallow waters, where in any case only small craft could go before the wind farms were there. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady accepts that placing an automatic ban on any small craft entering the area of those wind farms, without assessing whether that was needed, would be disproportionate and quite damaging to the interests of recreational and other users.

Anne McIntosh: The laughter on the Benches behind me speaks for itself. When I was MEP for the part of Essex that includes Southend, East, I witnessed the alarming sight of one of the yachts to which the Minister referred stuck on a sandbank, probably because the crew's mariner skills were as extensive as mine. They broke the rudder and were affixed to the sandbank. We must accept that not everyone using the waters with recreational craft has the experience he thinks.
 I draw the Committee's attention to UNCLOS, which clearly sets out in part II the requirements of a member state seeking to develop the renewable zone, as the Government wish to do. It clearly states what precautions a Government can take. 
 I do not find the Minister's reassurances satisfactory. He has not properly responded, but it is still not too late to explain why the installations are being treated differently from oil rigs, which are smaller hazards and further out to sea. We shall not press amendment No. 172 or new clause 18, but we want to put amendment No. 171 to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 184, in
clause 96, page 74, line 43, at end insert—
'(i) shall be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.
 The amendment would introduce a further requirement in relation to the notices issued under clause 96. The clause establishes safety zones and 
 subsection (6) states how the notice shall be presented. The amendment would add the additional requirements that the notice should be published—that may be inherent in its nature—and, more significantly, that there should be such a right of appeal. 
 That may appear to be a notional or technical point, but I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the whole process bypasses the standard planning process relating to onshore applications. The amendment would establish the fact that there ought to be a right to appeal against the notice, which should be as simple as possible. It should introduce as little delay as possible, but preserve the rights of those who feel that the notice is oppressive to them or their interests. 
 We discussed earlier the fact that there is a wide range of interests in respect of the outcome of such a safety zone notice. They include those who are adversely affected by a restriction on their access to the area, such as the fishing industry or leisure interests, or indeed the wider shipping industry. Those who were intending to invest in a safety zone might object to the restrictions placed on them and their operations. 
 This is a straightforward attempt to test the Minister on the requirement for an appeal. I hope he can accept this simple addendum.

Stephen Timms: I recommend that the Committee reject this amendment. The hon. Gentleman's point on publication is covered by subsection (7); a
 comprehensive framework for considering applications to the Secretary of State for a safety zone notice is set out in schedule 16. There is provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations about such matters as the publication of the application and its service on particular persons. Everybody who wants to will have the opportunity to give their views to the Secretary of State on an application. There is provision for a public inquiry should the Secretary of State conclude that one is appropriate.
 The decision by the Secretary of State is also subject to the normal rules of judicial review, so if the decision is irrational, or the procedure is not carried out correctly, it can be reviewed by the courts. We have provided a thorough and robust process. The hon. Member for Vale of York argued that we should have automatic safety zones in every instance. I do not agree, but it is right to leave the process as it stands without the additional complexity that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would add.

Andrew Stunell: I hear what the Minister says. I understand the balance that has to be struck between protecting the rights of all those with an interest in the matter and making progress. His reply is somewhat disappointing, but, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.